On May 10th, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund purchased a full page ad in the New York Times (here in pdf) supporting the Warner-Lieberman “Climate Security Act” cap and trade bill. One sentence written in huge bold face type yells: “THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN THAT CAN SAVE THE WORLD.” Apparently the NRDC believes the louder a blatant lie is told the better.

The small print on the ad goes on to explain: “Tackling global warming will generate a jobs program of epic proportions. … All told, going greener will create millions of new American jobs and pour billions of dollars into our struggling economy.”

Well somebody forget to tell the authors of the “Climate Security Act” about all these millions of net jobs the bill will create. The Act contains a provision that would charge huge tariffs on goods from all countries that do not have a similar carbon emissions cap on their economy. Huge trading partners like China, Mexico, and India would all be affected. But if the emissions cap is such the “economic stimulus” that the NRDC claims, then why is it necessary to include these tariffs? Shouldn’t all the new energy saving technology allow the US to compete at absolutely no cost? But don’t trust us about the sure economic hardships that Lieberman-Warner will create. Just ask Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who told the Cleveland Plain Dealer last week:

I have serious concerns about any climate-change bill that doesn’t take into account energy-intensive industries like we have in Ohio — glass and chemicals and steel and aluminum and foundries.

Apparently the NRDC took out an ad in the wrong paper. For honest accounting on the costs of Lieberman-Warner check out Heritage’s “The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation” today.  Source